[Stoves] Radiation Analysis for Gasifier
Marc Pare
mpare at gatech.edu
Sun Mar 18 01:09:43 CDT 2012
*Alex:* I don't see an approach to modeling the convective heat transfer
that would give us useful quantitative results. There are lots of messy
quantities to deal with in that calculation (mass flow, heat transfer
coefficient, ...)
*Ron:* I really appreciate you spending the time chewing on the results.
Crispin said most of what there is to say. I was aiming at a useful
grounding in theory to guide the discussion. There were some pretty gnarly
pseudo-physics used to support arguments over the last week. Debunking the
doubling of performance was just an excuse to get started.
# [RWL] "Since we so far have only one data point, I think the question of
radiation's importance is still open."
You're right.
The goal isn't to say "radiation is pointless", but to refine our tools to
discover *how *it can be useful. Now we've got a spreadsheet we can twiddle
around with testing out improvement scenarios!
In the best of all possible worlds, I would have written something really
eloquent about that at the end of my report, but I had already spent a week
documenting a 30 minute calculation, and I wanted to get it out there.
# [RWL] The issue is still whether a mesh can provide something that is
worth the expense/bother. There are many products on the market using
radiation principles.
I flipped through the chapters of radiative burners in the *Industrial
Burners Handbook *and couldn't find an example of a radiative burner used
to improve heat transfer efficiency. It appears the primary application is
in drying operations that require even & responsive heat (at the sacrifice
of some efficiency)
Would love to see a counter-example.
Marc Paré
B.S. Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology | Université de Technologie de Compiègne
my cv, etc. | http://notwandering.com
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:39 AM, <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> Crispin etal
>
> See few inserts below.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> *To: *rongretlarson at comcast.net, "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, mredmond3 at gatech.edu
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 17, 2012 3:03:23 PM
> *Subject: *RE: [Stoves] Radiation Analysis for Gasifier
>
> Dear Ron and Marc
>
>
>
> Before addressing the corrections or the exactitude of the analysis I want
> to first recall the purpose of the calculation Marc has done. He is looking
> to see if it is possible for the heat transfer efficiency to have doubled
> by placing a dome of mesh that got very hot under a pot. The postulations
> about *how* it might have accomplished the feat are separate from the
> question of *if* it can be done.
>
>
>
> The figures Marc chose are reasonable, even favourable to the case. In
> order for the dome to have doubled the cooking efficiency (reducing the
> time to boil) it would have to be shown that from a low radiant baseline
> the addition of a high radiant object could account for the change.
>
>
> *[RWL: My message earlier today (in full below) was intended to show
> that a different (higher) assumption on the metal area in a mesh would
> allow one to think about the mesh doing what we at one time thought was
> occurring. But early on the 15th, Paul Olivier wrote to us, saying in
> part:*
>
>
> **
>
> * **"I did a second experiment with the dome in place.*
> The boiling times were exactly the same with or without the dome.
> I apologize to you all in leading you to think that thermal radiation was
> making a big difference."
>
>
> RWL cont'd - You must have missed this message. So I think the
> issue is no longer to try to prove anything like a doubling in efficiency.
> But (as you conclude also in last paragraph) radiation can still possibly
> be an important additional design parameter. We can learn more as soon as
> we hear from Paul on the characteristics of his particular strainer and put
> those numbers into the Ga Tech computations. Since we so far have only one
> data point, I think the question of radiation's importance is still open.
>
>
>
>
> If the absorbed power with the dome was at a rate of 1.65 kW, as Marc has
> calculated, then the baseline case is half of that, viz 0.83 kW. While
> there is certainly a radiative element in the baseline case, we do not know
> what it is because we do not have a photo of the stove taken in the IR
> band. Let us suppose it was 20% radiant and 80% convective, giving some
> credit for hot cases such as water vapour and CO2 being emissive in the IR.
>
>
>
> Next, assume a baseline thermal efficiency for the whole system of 30%.
> That means the pot was absorbing 0.825 kW from a 2.75 kW fire if I do the
> sum correctly to an additional decimal place.
>
>
>
> Of that 0.825 kW, 20% is radiant and 80% convective. That means 165 Watts
> of radiant heat and 660 Watts of convective heat.
>
>
>
> [RWL _ Repeat that the 20% value is based on an assumed strainer
> metal ratio of 0.1. Might be considerably more (as calculated below).]
>
>
> In order for the net power to double, the ‘wasted’ heat would have to be
> converted to IR and emitted to the pot. As is shown in the drawing, there
> is quite a substantial area of the pot+housing that is ‘not pot’. Disregard
> the low incident angle of the IR, even though an experiment reported here
> this week showed a significant change in the efficiency in the reception of
> low angle IR.
>
>
>
> If an additional 0.83 kW was to be obtained from the 2.75 kW fire,
> assuming no change in the fire power or reduction in the excess air, the
> radiant contribution would have to rise from 165 Watts to 825+165 = 990
> Watts, plus retain the 660 Watts of convective heat. The system efficiency
> will have to rise to 60% from 30% to achieve this. That seems unlikely but
> let’s not draw conclusions just yet.
>
>
> [RWL: We can do some more computations on the convective heat
> transfer efficiency if we could agree on the theoretical convective heat
> transfer coefficient for this geometry. I think we will find that 30%
> efficency is going to be hard to achieve (based on some material I have
> read from Dr. Dale Andreatta - who has a nice report on trying to maximize
> the convective heat phenomena.
>
>
>
> What Marc is showing is whether this is possible at all. Using the
> generous temperature of 750 C and a wire mesh of 10% coverage and an
> unbelievably generous emissivity of ε = 1.0 for the wire the emitted
> power is 301 Watts, 1/3 of the needed IR power, and not yet discounting for
> the fact that only about 60% of the radiant energy is hitting the pot. If
> you consider that the mesh radiates downwards as well as out and away, the
> % is probably even less.
>
>
>
> Let’s be generous and add more surface wire: 40% wire coverage. The power
> emitted jumps to 1205 Watts which is above the needed 990. Add the more
> realistic emissivity for stainless steel wire of ε = 0.6 and it drops to
> 723 watts. Then reduce the temperature to a more realistic 650 C and it
> drops to 477 W. Factor in the losses to the local environment that is ‘not
> pot’ and it drops to 346 W. As the pickup of heat is not 100% efficient,
> the IR heat available is even less. My guess is closer to 250 W (about 70%).
>
>
>
> Even if there was zero heat transfer from IR in the baseline, an increase
> of 250-350 Watts is not enough to cut the cooking time in half – it is
> still 3-fold short of making this happen. And that still has to be factored
> for the mesh area which is probably less than 40%, and we must consider the
> round wires emitting in all directions.
>
>
>
> Conclusion: there is absolutely no way for a radiant dome to double the
> cooking efficiency of this particular stove.
>
> [RWL: Agreed - but no one is now claiming that. The issue is still
> whether a mesh can provide something that is worth the expense/bother.
> There are many products on the market using radiation principles.]
>
>
> Whatever the differences are between the two burners, the improvement in
> IR is at the most no more than a few % because the radiant heat from the
> baseline is not zero and a realistic calculation of what it could be gives
> about 250 Watts absorbed IR energy from the dome, or 16% of the total heat
> getting into the pot.
>
> [RWL: Might be - but this is an estimate - based neither on
> computation nor measurement.
>
>
>
> All of the above does not say that a radiant mesh dome can’t increase the
> efficiency of the stove. It just shows it can’t double the it. Because
> there is a real possibility it will help, this spreadsheet can be used to
> optimise the effect, and to calculate what effect a radiant structure might
> have. Designers, rejoice.
>
> [RWL: I agree, mostly. But I can imagine situations (with
> reflectors) where more than a doubling is possible. We need more
> experimental results. One data point is not enough.]
>
>
> I hope other Excel computation include the actual as attachments.
>
>
> For Paul Olivier - Thanks for the full descriptions given today for
> the secondary air path - which I now think I understand. I think there is
> a significant pre-heating of you secondary air - and it might be that the
> improvement in boiling times is likely due to much less excess air (The
> vertical flow is in a channel of 15 mm width , but the final short
> horizontal path only has 6 mm height. Might be optimum, but as above, we
> only have one data point - further improvement might still be possible.
> Anyone with computational fluid dynamics capabilities might be able to give
> some guidance. Changes in these two dimensions will not make much
> difference in costs.
>
> For others - I have had off-list conversations with Paul on the
> double row of "Belonio" holes. They may be optimum - but I would like to
> see other designs tested as well. I think secondary air could more easily
> reach the interior if the circumferential hole placement was replaced by
> radial slits. I must add that the array of small holes has led several
> to think there was pre-mixing. So it is clear that the array of small
> holes (or slits?) seems to have considerable value. We are at the
> beginning of knowing how to optimize hole placement and szing - much less
> achieve pre-mixing - in small cheap stoves.
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> Final numbers used:
>
>
>
> Prepared 3/10/2012 by Marc Pare
>
> Reviewed and Revised by Crispin Pemberton-Pigott 2012/3/17
>
> Re-released 2012/3/17
>
> *Dimensions*
>
> radius_pot
>
> mm
>
> 125
>
> radius_dome
>
> mm
>
> 125
>
> gap height
>
> mm
>
> 40
>
> *Area of mesh*
>
> percent metal
>
>
>
> 0.3
>
> A
>
> mm^2
>
> 49087.38521
>
> A_mesh
>
> mm^2
>
> 14726.21556
>
>
>
> m^2
>
> 0.014726216
>
> *Radiation*
>
> stefan boltzmann (σ)
>
> W/(m^2-K^4)
>
> 5.67E-08
>
> emissivity (ε)
>
>
>
> 0.6
>
> T_mesh
>
> K
>
> 923
>
> T_pot
>
> K
>
> 333
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> q
>
> [W/m^2]
>
> 24272.81586
>
> Q
>
> W
>
> 357.4467187
>
>
>
> kW
>
> 0.357446719
>
> *Power to boil water in 1L, 222s scenario*
>
> Spec Heat Water
>
> kcal/kg-C
>
> 1
>
> Temp Difference
>
> C
>
> 74
>
> Density Water
>
> kg/m^3
>
> 1000
>
> Volume Water
>
> L
>
> 1
>
>
>
> m^3
>
> 0.001
>
> Energy required
>
> kcal
>
> 74
>
>
>
> kJ
>
> 310.06
>
> Water evaporated
>
> g
>
> 25
>
> Latent heat of Evap
>
> J
>
> 2,257
>
> Heat absorbed by pot
>
> J
>
> 366,485
>
> Time
>
> s
>
> 222
>
> Power
>
> W
>
> 1,651
>
>
>
> kW absorbed
>
> 1.65
>
> Percent of heat that might be contributed to cooking by Radiation from a
> red hot mesh dome under the centre.
>
>
>
> *21.65%*
>
> *Bonus View Factor Calculation*
>
> *View Factor*
>
> r_1
>
> mm
>
> 125
>
> r_2
>
> mm
>
> 125
>
> a
>
> mm
>
> 40
>
> R_1
>
>
>
> 3.125
>
> R_2
>
>
>
> 3.125
>
> X
>
>
>
> 2.1024
>
> F_1-2
>
>
>
> 0.727
>
> Percent of heat actually contributed to cooking by Radiation from a red
> hot mesh dome under the centre.
>
>
>
> *15.74%*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* rongretlarson at comcast.net [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net]
>
>
>
> Marc, Matt etal
>
> Two problems I see with your analysis.
>
> First is minor - Your equation 1 show a linear variation with
> temperature, whereas it should show a 4th power. But you were using the
> proper fourth power in your Excel spread sheet - so this was just a typo.
>
> More serious is your assumption that the metal portion of the mesh is
> 10%. This is appropriate only for a very few mesh per inch and fine wire.
> My guess is that Paul's mesh could be more like 30-40% - which will change
> your conclusion a great deal. See pages like:
>
> http://www.twpinc.com/wire-mesh/TWPCAT_12/p_014X014S0170W48T
>
> So this is to ask Paul Olivier for a visual check on what he was using
> in his particular strainer. A manufacturer and model number would be
> helpful, if available
>
> Conversely, I worry about assuming the mesh was as high as 750 degrees
> - based on the color in Paul's photo. But I am used (vaguely - long time
> ago) to looking at solid materials through a peep hole in ceramic kilns.
> The openness of the mesh must affect our visual color/temperature
> calibrations. Anyone up on that?
>
> I'd like to know more about the maximum possible kiln power level - by
> knowing the amount of rice husk consumed per unit time (same as question
> asked by Crispin, I think). From this we can start to compute the
> convective heat transfer coefficient. In other words, what part of the
> output energy was not getting into the cookpot? I think we can assume a
> larger portion of the radiative energy was captured than of the convective.
>
> Also the amount of water evaporated should be easy to measure rather
> than guesstimate. I also would feel better running longer and using the
> weight evaporated for these energy capture-power computations.
>
> Ron
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120318/32d3bfe7/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list